Tuesday, June 27, 2017

Second Amendment advocates stung by the Supreme Court’s decision not to take up a closely watched gun rights case vowed Monday to pursue litigation as long as it takes to get the justices to affirm the right to carry a firearm outside the home.

The court opted Monday not to hear Peruta v. California, letting stand a ruling from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that upheld a California law requiring a gun owner to show “good cause” in order to get a permit to carry a concealed handgun in public. The state law left the authority to decide what constitutes “good cause” up to local authorities such as sheriffs or police chiefs.

Gun owner Edward Peruta, of San Diego County, brought the case after he sought to carry concealed firearms for self-defense but was denied a concealed carry license in 2009 because he was unable to show good cause.

While the justices did not offer a written explanation of their reasoning, Justice Clarence Thomas issued a strong rebuke of his colleagues’ decision not to hear the case.

“The Court’s decision to deny certiorari in this case reflects a distressing trend: the treatment of the Second Amendment as a disfavored right,” wrote Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Neil M. Gorsuch in his dissent.

6 comments:

Anonymous
said...

This action was a waste of time , of course you must show good cause to carry in California , land of the idiots.Congress should not be allowed to carry , hell they don't even know how to load a gun of any kind.

In the next 4-6 years, some of the Supreme's (Kennedy age 80; Ginsburg age 84; Breyer age 78) will retire from the bench. Opportunities to hear this type of case as well as other important issues will come again and more than likely pass.

Gorsuch issued a fiery response to this and with good reason. The Second Amendment is very important to many people and it's just horrible they denied this case because it goes to heart of one of our inalienable rights.

The Constitution does not require proof of cause for rights. Do you need to prove yourself to speak freely? No! Do you need prove yourself to be secure from unjust searches and seizures? No! So logically why should you prove yourself for your right to keep and bear arms? Also note that the use of and not or, or may, or shall! Keep AND bear!

and people who are convicted of ANY felony, dishonorable discharge from military, habitual drunkard, etc are forbidden to own or possess any firearm or ammo. They are left defenseless and their 2nd amendment rights are taken from them.